The morality of war

[Phoenix Wright]

i know, it was a passive-aggressive attempt at getting blah to respond to his prior claim ("anything goes"). he still hasn't T_T

[Naughx]

The victors usually make the Rules... The League of Nations was created at the aftermath of WWI while the UN was created just after WWII...

Why do you think Germany doesn't have a permanent seat at the security council? While the major allies all have one? (Russia, China, US, France, UK) (They didn't all have nukes back in 1946)

Edited July 25, 2015 by Naughx

[Phoenix Wright]

so? things change--i can easily imagine a world where the victor is still held to certain standards.

[Naughx]

so? things change--i can easily imagine a world where the victor is still held to certain standards.

Plus ça change, plus c'est pareil !

People keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again... We are humans.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Naughx

[Phoenix Wright]

that's not an argument, that is nonsense.

[Naughx]

that's not an argument, that is nonsense.

Genocides still happens... And will happen again in the future... We didn't really learn from WW2.

There is no point in winning if you cannot force your way.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Naughx

[blah the Prussian]

Okay, full disclosure on Chemical Weapons: their main problem is that it takes forever for them to go away. If I recall correctly there were incidents in WWI where they were used far from any civilians and they still hit said civilians. They are too hard to control to be used except in extreme circumstances.

Also I think Stalin did kill more people than Hitler, unless you count WWII, which isn't really fair as some of those deaths can be chalked up to the Japanese.

[Blaze The Great]

Genocides still happens... And will happen again in the future... We didn't really learn from WW2.

There is no point in winning if you cannot force your way.

What are you even talking about?

[Life]

Chemical Weapons are unforgivable simply because they do not discriminate. You can't aim a chemical weapon at a military installation and be assured that no fallout happens. Of course civilians are going to get hurt and what makes the act unforgivable is that it is common knowledge that collateral permanent damage will happen.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki both say hi.

On the topic of war, I'm probably the person here the most familiar with the idea considering that I was an active combat soldier for over two years and participated in Operation Pillar of Defense back in 2012. And yes, you can uphold morality in wartime. A soldier can shield an innocent family with his own body or offer them up as a human shield. I've seen both examples happen.

[Esau of Isaac]

Chemical Weapons are unforgivable simply because they do not discriminate. You can't aim a chemical weapon at a military installation and be assured that no fallout happens. Of course civilians are going to get hurt and what makes the act unforgivable is that it is common knowledge that collateral permanent damage will happen.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki both say hi.

On the topic of war, I'm probably the person here the most familiar with the idea considering that I was an active combat soldier for over two years and participated in Operation Pillar of Defense back in 2012. And yes, you can uphold morality in wartime. A soldier can shield an innocent family with his own body or offer them up as a human shield. I've seen both examples happen.

Neither do bombs discriminate. The difference is the greater capability for torturous and sure death, and the ways it can be applied. The only reason biological warfare is banned is because of the implications of widespread use. In much the same way as nuclear weapons, the last thing major powers want to do is deal with defending against nerve gas attacks from enemy combatants. It's why everyone made use of chemical weapons in WWI, but not at all in WWII, even though it was an unspoken agreement. It is telling that people would rather have chunks of white-hot metal shot at their face at hundreds of feet a second rather than sarin gas, I should say.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Esau of Isaac

[blah the Prussian]

Actually, the only reason gas wasn't used in WWII was that Hitler had been in a gas attack in WWI and didn't want to inflict that on anyone else. Except Jews of course. Also IIRC the Japanese were gunning for that with some pretty fucked up research (google at your own risk) but they didn't succeed.

[Phoenix Wright]

that's only an answer for why it wasn't used by the germans.

[blah the Prussian]

that's only an answer for why it wasn't used by the germans.

Nah, I think the Allies planned to honor the agreements against gas, but it was more iffy with the Nazis. I don't know why the Soviets didn't use them, though, as gas seems to be right up Stalin's alley.

[Esau of Isaac]

Actually, the only reason gas wasn't used in WWII was that Hitler had been in a gas attack in WWI and didn't want to inflict that on anyone else. Except Jews of course. Also IIRC the Japanese were gunning for that with some pretty fucked up research (google at your own risk) but they didn't succeed.

The Germans were not the only victims of chemical weapons. You're speaking from a Hitler's perspective, and that's sensible, but outside of isolated incidents that were generally agreed to be accidents there are virtually no accounts of their use from any major or minor power, despite initial effectiveness and technological progression in the interwar period. No one wanted to deal with the ramifications of chemical weapons in total war, as if the horrors that were already in use were not brutal enough.

[blah the Prussian]

The Germans were not the only victims of chemical weapons. You're speaking from a Hitler's perspective, and that's sensible, but outside of isolated incidents that were generally agreed to be accidents there are virtually no accounts of their use from any major or minor power, despite initial effectiveness and technological progression in the interwar period. No one wanted to deal with the ramifications of chemical weapons in total war, as if the horrors that were already in use were not brutal enough.

Well, there's your answer. No one wanted unrestricted chemical warfare. Seems sensible enough.

[Naughx]

Many countries they did mass produce them... Most countries dumped them near the coasts after the war. (Mediterranean sea, North Sea)

Now we are stuck with them...

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

Also I think Stalin did kill more people than Hitler, unless you count WWII, which isn't really fair as some of those deaths can be chalked up to the Japanese.

I never fully understood why the Japanese government refuse to acknowledge their past-war crimes/atrocities to this day; especially with the whole Article 9 issues with the Japan's Self-Defence Forces.

[blah the Prussian]

The best I can figure is that the Japanese people in general were never shown the atrocities of their government first hand, while the allies showed the concentration camps to the German people. There's also the issue that the Japanese people never really wanted to admit their wrongdoings, while there was a pretty big colt urial movement in Germany to admit the mistakes of the past. Japanese culture in General is also more nationalistic than German culture. Still, it is an interesting question, one that is by no means easy to answer.

[Alazen]

You might be oversating how accepted war crimes denial is in Japan. Sure, a few politicians have claimed as such. There is some in the broad population as well. Japanese history textbooks have largely included Japan's war crimes in WWII, but admittedly downplay them.

Yes, there is an aversion to talking about the war crimes along with a neglect of them in the West. These have roots in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima with Nagasaki and the aftermath of WWII (namely the US led occupation) . It was decided that the emperor would not be prosecuted since it was believed that keeping him as a figurehead would aid the occupation. The Emperor was the symbol of Japan, so saying that he was not responsible sends the message to the Japanese hoi polloi that they too were not responsible. The official story became that the people, like the Emperor, were deceived and dragged into the war by runaway militarists and ultranationalists who had hijacked the government. And so, only a few top officials were prosecuted.

A notable amount of politicians and industrialists were removed from office, but with the Cold War breaking out it was planned for Japan to get back on its feet as an ally against the Soviets. So, the removed were let back into office for their use in managing industrial development. In the end, the blame fell on Tojo and Company. They were the bad guys and everyone else was a victim of them going overboard (For more on this, see Dower's Embracing Defeat)

Also, there's the issue of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima with Nagasaki. Among other factors, they enabled Japanese war crimes to be neglected in the West (For more on this, read Japanese War Crimes: The Search for Justice)

Edited August 10, 2015 by Alazen

[blah the Prussian]

I could probably write an entire book on how MacArthur fucked up the war crime tribunals with rampant corruption. As it stood, not only were a lot of the bad guys not prosecuted, a bunch of the wrong people were prosecuted. Take for example the Yamashita case. My opinion on the Emperor is that he certainly was a ware of war crimes, and probably could have stopped them, but the same can probably be said for the people of Japan at large. The Emperor was negligent to am extent unbecoming of a monarch, but that is not a crime.

[Alazen]

Saying Hirohito was "negligent" understates his actual involvement in Japan's WW2 activities. Hirohito being a pawn of the military is whitewashing propaganda. Hirohito permitted the use of poison gas in Wuhan.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Alazen

[blah the Prussian]

Fair enough. I was speaking more generally, in that he could have dismissed the military government and called elections, but I see what you mean.

[Esau of Isaac]

Saying Hirohito was "negligent" understates his actual involvement in Japan's WW2 activities. Hirohito being a pawn of the military is whitewashing propaganda. Hirohito permitted the use of poison gas in Wuhan.

This is true, but the general interpretation of Hirohito as he stands today is on account of the latter months of the war, when he was insistent on ending hostilities despite fervent council members determined to fight on. Most highschoolers only learn about the attempted coup at the end of the war, and so interpret him to be a wholly peaceful leader.

Edit: I meant this as a piggyback to what you're saying if it doesn't seem that way haha

Edited August 10, 2015 by Esau of Isaac

[Alazen]

The modern consensus of Hirohito in the historical community that specializes in Imperial Japan is that while he wasn't a Stalinish figure who had his clutches throughout the empire, he also wasn't the puppet of the military MacArthur and Co. presented him as.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Alazen

[blah the Prussian]

The modern consensus of Hirohito in the historical community that specializes in Imperial Japan is that while he wasn't a Stalinish figure who had his clutches throughout the empire, he also wasn't the puppet of the military MacArthur and Co. presented him as.

The irony is that he absolutely had the authority to be a Stalinism figure if he really wanted, he just didn't want to rule. In most monarchies that would be for better, but in Japan it was for worse. But yeah, that assessment is probably accurate.